B-234244, Mar 27, 1989, 89-1 CPD 312
Highlights
The agency properly made award to the firm whose offer was low when the prices for all the zones within the group were totaled as opposed to the protester whose offer was low for only one of the three zones within the group. Technically acceptable offeror it should have received a portion of the award. The 26 items were divided into 3 award groups. The RFP instructed offerors in part that "award will be made in the aggregate by group for all zones within the group.". It is the low. Therefore should have received the award. While the protester's final offer was considered technically acceptable. PSI's price was lowest for group 1. When the prices offered were totaled for all 3 zones within group 1.
B-234244, Mar 27, 1989, 89-1 CPD 312
PROCUREMENT - Competitive Negotiation - Contract awards - Multiple/aggregate awards - Propriety DIGEST: Since solicitation for different types of furniture provided that award would be made in the aggregate by group for all the geographical delivery zones within the group, the agency properly made award to the firm whose offer was low when the prices for all the zones within the group were totaled as opposed to the protester whose offer was low for only one of the three zones within the group.
Products Services & Industries:
Products Services & Industries (PSI) protests the award of a contract to Alma Desk Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. FCNO-87-C601-N-5- 26-88, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for executive office furniture. PSI argues that as the low, technically acceptable offeror it should have received a portion of the award. We deny the protest.
The solicitation contained 26 line items representing different types of furniture for delivery within each of 3 geographic zones. The 26 items were divided into 3 award groups. Group 1 consisted of items 1-18, group 2 items 19-22, and group 3 items 23-26. Each group provided for delivery within all three geographic zones. The RFP instructed offerors in part that "award will be made in the aggregate by group for all zones within the group."
PSI objects to the award of group 1 items 1-18, zone 3. According to the protester, it is the low, technically acceptable offeror for that zone in group 1, and therefore should have received the award.
We find no merit to the protester's argument. While the protester's final offer was considered technically acceptable, the solicitation did not provide for award to the low, technically compliant offeror for each zone within a group; rather, the method of award clause in the solicitation clearly required the contract to be awarded to the offeror with the lowest aggregate price by group for all zones within that group. Although, PSI's price was lowest for group 1, zone 3, when the prices offered were totaled for all 3 zones within group 1, Alma was the lowest aggregate offeror at $4,002,423. PSI's aggregate offer for the group was $5,751,163.90. Since the solicitation stated that the agency would make an aggregate award by group and since the award to Alma was consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, we have no basis upon which to question the agency's action.
The protest is denied.